A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Monday denied Erik and Lyle Menendez’s habeas corpus petition seeking a new trial in the 1989 Beverly Hills murders of their parents, ending another legal bid by the brothers to overturn their decades-old conviction. Judge William Ryan concluded that the newly presented material would most likely not have changed the jury’s verdict had it been available at trial.
The petition, filed in 2023 by the brothers’ attorneys, cited two pieces of new material: a letter Erik allegedly wrote to his cousin in late 1988 or early 1989, and newly surfaced statements by Roy Rosselló, a former member of the boy band Menudo, who said he was also sexually abused by José Menendez as a teenager. The defense argued the evidence painted a picture of a violent and abusive father and supported their years-long claim that Erik was subjected to sustained abuse and manipulation. Prosecutors, however, argued the letter was not truly new and had simply not been presented in court before, failing to meet the statutory requirements for a habeas petition.
In a social-media post, Lyle Menendez criticized the court’s decision, saying the fight would continue despite the setback and praising Rosselló’s courage in detailing alleged abuse. He characterized the ruling as a mental gymnastics exercise about whether additional testimony would have changed jurors’ minds and promised that the brothers would press forward with their efforts.
The ruling comes amid a broader sequence of developments tied to the case. Last month, both Erik and Lyle were denied parole in separate California Board of Parole Hearings hearings, continuing a pattern of limited mobility within the prison system. Board officials said the men continue to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety, noting concerns about conduct and attitudes observed in prison. A Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office spokesperson said the parole decision did not affect the legal standards at issue in the habeas petition and that the older letter had already been known to prosecutors for decades.
The Menendez case has moved through the courts for years. In May, a resentencing hearing reduced their life-without-parole terms to 50-to-life, making them eligible for parole consideration beginning in 2028. Prosecutors have said the alteration does not erase the gravity of the crimes or lessen the necessity of careful review in any future parole proceedings. The California Board of Parole Hearings’ decisions are separate from habeas proceedings and reflect ongoing assessments of the men’s risk and rehabilitation in prison.
The brothers were convicted in 1996 of fatally shooting their parents, José and Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills home in 1989. The case, which drew intense public and media scrutiny due to its sensational family context and ties to Hollywood, has persisted as a focal point in discussions about criminal justice, abuse, and the appeals process. The current decision, while not final on the underlying convictions, maintains the status quo that keeps the brothers incarcerated while they pursue parole considerations and any further appellate avenues.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman, speaking at a press conference, stood by the judge’s denial of the new-trial bid and argued that the newly cited letter did not meet the criteria for a habeas corpus petition. Hochman noted that the letter had existed for years, was not presented in the earlier trials, and is not timely for a habeas petition, which typically must be filed within a defined period after discovery of new information. He emphasized that prosecutors had not relied on the letter to secure the original conviction and that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of a different outcome at trial.
As the legal process moves forward, the Menendez brothers’ supporters and critics alike will watch closely for any new appellate filings or motions related to the habeas petition. While the judge’s ruling closes one pathway to a new trial, it does not preclude potential future petitions or other legal actions tied to the complex record of abuse allegations and possible evidentiary gaps.
